That actually wasn't interesting at all, nor was it convincing. Take a look at section 4 in Vintek's post. The vast majority of small business fall into the group that will not be required to provide healthcare (50 people or less).

Pretty hilarious. Not a single fact, figure, or example cited. She talks about the complexity of the system, comparing it to taxes. But does any of us avoid doing our taxes because of it's complexity? She cites conflicting regulations but doesn't give a single example of any conflicts in the regulations.

As per the original post in this thread, companies with fewer than 50 employees are exempt. Of the companies with more than 50 employees, more than 96% already provide benefits. We're talking 0.2% of employers being affected here.

And where in the law does it say that a company has to provide exactly the same healthcare coverage? I don't see anything like that in the text of the law. Do you? In fact, people will be able to go to exchanges and select what they want, paying extra for better benefits if they wish.

Will costs go up? Yes. Papa John's founder says that it will force the price of pizza to rise 11 to 14 cents per pizza and that they'll pass this cost to the customers (see earlier post in this thread). Frankly, I think the cost of pizza will go up more because the price of cheese will skyrocket as the drought causes the price of cattle feed to rise. Already, ranchers are sending their cattle to slaughter in order to get the best prices while their cattle still have some weight.

And you know what? It's appropriate for the cost of that healthcare to be passed on to Papa John's customers.

From a http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/opinion/carroll-health-care-act/index.html:

Quote:

Part of what the act does is mandate that companies start providing health insurance to their employees or pay a penalty. Since some don't do that already, this will cost them money. They could take this out of profits or reduce the salaries of their executives, but they will probably do what every business does: They'll pass it on to the consumer.

This is as it should be. Some companies probably keep costs down by not providing comprehensive health benefits to their employees. Now, they will have to. I imagine some companies already do, which probably increases their costs, and now they will be on a more level playing field. Regardless, Papa John's is telling you that people who order its pizza will now bear the cost of its employees' health insurance.

Again -- as it should be! Should people who don't order Papa John's pizza have to pay for that insurance? That's what's happening now.

In 2004, for instance, more than half of Wal-Mart employees did not get health care coverage through their jobs. More than a quarter of children of Wal-Mart employees therefore got their insurance through Medicaid or SCHIP. That means Wal-Mart didn't pay for their health insurance; taxpayers did. Moreover, every time an uninsured employee had to go to an emergency department and receive uncompensated care, who paid for that? The rest of us.

You may believe that we, as a country, shouldn't pay for care for the uninsured. But most of us are unwilling to let the sick, especially children, suffer. So we -- individual Americans -- have been paying for this health care, saving those companies money, regardless of whether we availed ourselves of their services. No longer. Under the Affordable Care Act, those costs will be the responsibility of those businesses and eventually their customers.

Yeah, companies will have to pay for healthcare but most of them already do. And we the taxpayers have been subsidizing the companies who haven't provided healthcare for their employees. Now we won't have to pay for that any more. The cost will be borne by the companies and the costs will be passed to their customers directly instead all of us taxpayers. Is there something about this that bothers you?

Oh, and I noticed that the small business owner, the one in the interview who cares about her employees, never mentioned the Affordable Health Care Act rebate check she may have received this week. OTOH, she might not have received one; but because she claimed to represent all small business owners, it did bear mentioning.

From the NY Times:

Quote:

Some small businesses were among the most strident opponents of the Affordable Care Act, but by Wednesday, many of these businesses will have received checks totaling $321 million from their health insurance providers, courtesy of the health care overhaul that became law in 2010. The checks are rebates from insurers that did not spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collected from small group plans on either actual health care expenses or improving the quality of health care, a provision known as the medical loss ratio rule.

Small businesses in 38 states, the District of Columbia and three United States territories are receiving checks on behalf of their employees, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. (In the remaining 12 states and in the Northern Mariana Islands, insurance companies in the small group market spent at least 80 percent of collected premiums on health care-related expenses.) The typical subscriber, which could be either an individual or a family, will receive a $174 rebate. Average rebates are highest in Georgia, at $811 per subscriber, and lowest in Utah, at $7 per subscriber.

Isn't it funny how stuff like that gets left out?

Last edited by VinTek on Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:58 am, edited 3 times in total.

It has been and still is, a major source of FUD. That network precisely fits the profile I posted about earlier:

VinTek wrote:

Despite the points in the original post and despite this latest CBO assessment, the opponents of the law will continue to hammer home the same points to their audiences as if none of this information existed. They won't even try to refute it; they'll just pretend that it doesn't exist. And the vast majority of their audience won't bother to look up the facts for themselves. They'll just echo the same points as their leadership.

I wish someone would take me up on my bet. The windfall would be nice.

Smaller firms with fewer than 50 people may not expand?Alternative to hiring - 1099 Contract Labor? Possible relocation for small businesses?

Eagle, you really need to learn to think critically. These pieces you are posting are complete nonsense and from a source that does not even try to be unbiased.

Businesses expand based on market demand. If that woman has paying customers to serve, she will expand. She can't legally convert an employee to a 1099 employee on a whim. She has to follow rules. She's not going to get away with paying them the same as before. Those new 1099 employees are going to demand enough to cover the same costs as before.

And moving to New Hampshire? How does that alleviate her burden to provide health benefits? It doesn't. But thanks for pointing out that she will receive tax relief by moving from a republican state to one with a democrat in the state house.

She cited $10000 per employee per year as a cost bogey for her decision. Given that it costs 1-2 years of salary to recruit and train a replacement employee, she must be pretty dumb if she is going to get rid of an employee over $10000.

It makes for a good sound bite but it hardly holds any water.

Fox news is not a reputable news source, and anecdotes from clueless small business owners do not make your point for you. We've had at least one credible source actually quantify the impact on small businesses in a forum where he had to tell the truth under law and we've heard it is about 15 cents per pizza. Maybe this woman needs to learn to run her business better.

I was going to wait until you gave your own opinion before answering but I can't resist.

Given that http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/us_07ss.pdf, over 96% of small businesses have less than 50 employees and are exempt from the Affordable Care Act, is it really surprising to you that 97% make less than $250K?

And given that in the original post it was established that 96% of companies with more than 50 employees already provide healthcare to their employees, we're talking about a tiny percentage of businesses who are impacted. Less than 0.2% of all firms (10K of 6M) are impacted (see original post).

And of those impacted, the law makes providing healthcare much more affordable by giving them the same rates and bargaining power as large firms.

Didn't they teach you to do any critical analysis in MBA school?

Just because I entitled this as a thread for dispelling FUD doesn't mean that you have to keep piling on the FUD.

Eagle, what is the point of your postings here? We know you don't like the ACA. But regardless of what you say, it is the law. It has been tested to the highest court in the land and upheld. The chance of Congress overturning it is extremely slim. As a whole it is only supported by a bit less than half the country. Polls suggest that each major provision though is supported by 60-80% of the nation. So any member of Congress voting for a repeal will have to explain why he voted against this provision or that provision. So, even if there is a lopsided win this fall, this law is extremely unlikely to be repealed and it will go into effect. Why are you wasting your time opposing and attacking a done deal?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum